For the BJP and the Modi government, which have consistently defended the Adani Group against allegations of corporate malfeasance, Anderson’s abrupt exit seems like a fortuitous reprieve. However, the unanswered questions about the Adani Group’s alleged misconduct and the apparent lack of decisive action from Indian regulatory authorities, particularly under SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch, leave an unsettling narrative unresolved. The implications of these developments stretch far beyond India’s borders, touching on geopolitical considerations, the integrity of financial systems, and the enduring influence of power dynamics in shielding elite interests.

Hindenburg’s reports had placed the Adani Group and its close alignment with the Modi government under a harsh global spotlight. The allegations, ranging from inflated stock valuations to opaque ownership structures, resonated with a global audience, raising questions about governance and the rule of law in India’s financial markets. Anderson’s justification for winding down his firm—that its objectives had been met and its profits secured—feels incomplete when juxtaposed against the magnitude of the accusations and their potential ramifications. The timing of his decision, coinciding with Trump’s rise to power, has fuelled speculation that political considerations may have influenced the move, particularly given Trump’s documented camaraderie with Modi and the mutual benefits derived from their relationship.

The Adani Group’s ascendancy has long been intertwined with the Modi administration’s economic policies, making it emblematic of the perceived crony capitalism critics attribute to India’s political and corporate elites. Allegations of regulatory lapses and possible complicity by SEBI, particularly under Buch’s leadership, compound the perception that institutional safeguards may have been compromised. Despite public outcry and international scrutiny, the lack of thorough and transparent investigations into these allegations raises serious concerns about accountability and the independence of regulatory bodies.

In the United States, the Adani investigations took on a distinctly political tone, reflecting a broader partisan divide. The Trump administration’s likely inclination to quash these probes to preserve its rapport with Modi aligns with its broader pattern of selectively enforcing accountability based on strategic interests. Statements from Republican lawmakers, such as Congressman Lance Gooden, suggest a concerted effort to deflect attention from the allegations, framing them as peripheral to U.S. priorities. Such rhetoric conveniently overlooks the broader implications of allowing global financial misconduct to persist unchecked, particularly when U.S. investors and institutions are directly or indirectly exposed.

The symbiotic relationship between Trump and Modi further complicates the narrative. Modi’s leadership has leveraged the Adani Group’s infrastructural ambitions as a showcase for India’s economic progress, while Trump’s administration often highlighted its partnership with India as a cornerstone of its geopolitical strategy. This confluence of interests creates fertile ground for suspicions that political expediency, rather than the pursuit of justice or economic integrity, drove decisions on both sides.

Nevertheless, Anderson’s exit does not absolve the Adani Group or SEBI of the allegations against them. The lingering questions about the integrity of transactions, potential conflicts of interest, and the broader implications for India’s financial markets demand answers. While the Modi government has been quick to dismiss these allegations as part of a Western conspiracy to undermine India’s growth, such deflections do little to bolster confidence in the country’s regulatory and governance frameworks. Instead, they risk eroding trust among international investors and partners, whose support is crucial for India’s economic ambitions.

The failure to address these allegations transparently also poses risks domestically. It reinforces perceptions of inequality before the law, where powerful corporate entities enjoy impunity while smaller players face the full weight of regulatory enforcement. Such disparities can undermine public confidence in institutions, creating an environment of cynicism and disillusionment that can stifle broader economic participation and innovation.

Beyond the specifics of the Adani case, the dynamics surrounding Hindenburg’s departure raise troubling questions about the effectiveness of short sellers and whistleblowers in exposing corporate misconduct. While Anderson and his firm undeniably brought critical issues to light, the apparent ease with which their investigations could be neutralized by shifting political tides highlights the vulnerabilities of such efforts. It underscores the need for stronger institutional mechanisms, both domestically and internationally, to protect and amplify the voices of those seeking to hold powerful entities accountable.

The role of SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch in this saga merits particular scrutiny. As the head of India’s primary market regulator, Buch bears significant responsibility for ensuring transparency and accountability in the financial markets. Yet, the allegations of inaction or potential complicity in shielding the Adani Group cast a shadow over her tenure and the institution she leads. For a nation aspiring to be a global economic powerhouse, such lapses in regulatory oversight are not just a domestic concern but a global liability.

India’s defence of the Adani Group, often couched in nationalistic rhetoric, risks conflating legitimate scrutiny with an attack on the nation itself. This approach not only undermines the credibility of such defences but also detracts from the substantive issues at hand. By framing criticism as a foreign conspiracy, the Modi government diverts attention from the systemic reforms needed to strengthen India’s financial and regulatory institutions. This strategy may yield short-term political gains but risks long-term reputational damage that could hinder India’s aspirations on the global stage. (IPA Service)